GOP Takes Pro-Lifers for Granted

This is certainly true.  I like the comparison about how Bush Jr. is so steadfast in support of continuing the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, but not about advancing the pro-life agenda.

Prolifers: Thanks for the Votes; We'll See You Again in Four Years
New Oxford Review
September 2005

When Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion nationwide) was upheld by the Supreme
Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), three justices wrote the joint
opinion saying that legal abortion is a matter of stare decisis - that is,
upholding precedent, upholding settled law. The three who wrote that opinion
were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (appointed by Reagan), Anthony Kennedy
(appointed by Reagan), and David Souter (appointed by Bush Sr.).

George W. Bush (Bush Jr.) said in several interviews before his inauguration
in 2000 that Roe is "settled law." Bush said he would not have a "litmus
test" on abortion for his judicial nominees (just as Reagan and Bush Sr.
said they would not). Nonetheless, prolifers voted in droves for Bush in
2004.

In a New Oxford Note (Jan. 2005, p. 19), we said: "We'd like to be proved
wrong, but we believe that the Republicans will never outlaw abortion or
insure that Roe v. Wade is reversed."

However, neoconservative Fr. Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests
for Life, was campaigning for Bush in 2004, and he said at the 32nd-annual
March for Life in 2005 that "I am very confident the President is going to
nominate very prolife justices."

George Weigel, another neoconservative Catholic, said that the 2004
presidential election will be a "nation-defining fork in the road" as
regards abortion, and he said he would "vote enthusiastically for George W.
Bush." Rounding out the neocon Catholic troika, Deal Hudson of Crisis and
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things were promoting Bush on the basis of
his prolife credentials.

Then there was neocon Catholic Robert George, who said after Bush's second
election victory: "What the president has promised to do is appoint someone
who will respect the distinction between interpreting the law and making
law. If he does...then that person will strike down Roe..." (National
Catholic Register, Dec. 19, 2004-Jan. 1, 2005). In his second sentence,
Robert George is quite mistaken, for there are many varieties of justices
who interpret the law rather than make the law - from originalists all the
way to the pragmatists and "traditionalists," who are prone to respect
precedent.

When President Bush appointed John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July
19, the President said Roberts "will strictly apply the Constitution and the
laws, not legislate from the bench," which is what Robert George was saying
in his first sentence. But does this mean John Roberts will strike down Roe,
as Robert George said in his second sentence? Not at all!

-    When Roberts was confirmed on May 8, 2003, to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, he received a unanimous vote from the
Senate, whereas other nominees Bush appointed were filibustered and never
were seated. That should tell you something right off the bat.

-    When Roberts was asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee for his
appointment to the Court of Appeals on April 30, 2003, about his views on
Roe, he said: "Roe vs. Wade is an interpretation of the Court's prior
precedents. You can read the opinion beginning not just with Griswold, which
is the case everybody begins with, but going even further back in other
areas involving the right to privacy.... And what the Court explained in
that case was the basis for the recognition of that right [to privacy]....
Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my
personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent." And Roberts is known for being honest and direct.

-    There is one thin thread that naïve prolifers cling to, but it is an
illusion. In the Bush Sr. Administration in 1991, Roberts, as an attorney,
argued on behalf of his client (the Administration) that "We continue to
believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." But he was
arguing on behalf of a client. As he said in his April 30, 2003,
confirmation hearing: "My practice [as an attorney] has not been ideological
in any sense. My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative
across the board.... I've argued in favor of affirmative action.... I've
argued in favor of antitrust enforcement. At the same time, I've represented
defendants charged with antitrust cases. I've argued cases against
affirmative action." He also said: "What I've been able to do in each of
those cases is set aside any personal views and discharge the professional
obligations of an advocate," and he said he did this when he represented
Bush Sr. when he said Roe should be overruled. His real views and his
judicial philosophy were expressed when he said Roe is "the settled law of
the land" and that he supports the "right to privacy."

-    As we write, Roberts has not gone before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, but it's obvious that Bush wanted someone who could sail through
the Committee and the full Senate. Bush didn't want a fight. He should have
fought (he fought for Alberto Gonzales and John Bolton), but we're not
surprised he didn't, because abortion is not important to him (e.g., see our
New Oxford Note, June 2005, pp. 21-22). Still, he did nominate ten appeals
court judges who were filibustered by the Senate (a comparatively small
amount). Three nominees who had been filibustered got through when seven
Republicans and seven Democrats brokered a compromise to avert the "nuclear
option" that would have ended judicial filibusters. One of those was Janice
Rogers Brown, a twofer "diversity" candidate, being both a woman and a
black. She is a staunch prolifer who denies that there is a generalized
"right to privacy" in the Constitution. She could easily have been
appointed. Under the compromise, Democrats said there were no "extraordinary
circumstances" that would cause them to filibuster her for the appeals
court. If the Democrats were to renege on their promise not to filibuster
her for the Supreme Court, the Republican Senate could always invoke the
nuclear option. If perchance, certain moderate Republicans would balk at the
nuclear option, Bush could leave the seat empty. The retiring O'Connor was
pro-Roe; one less pro-Roe vote. But with Roberts we get another pro-Roe
vote.

-    Bush promised to appoint justices "like Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas." But Bush didn't. According to the San Francisco Chronicle (July
21), "Roberts indicated at the [confirmation] hearing discomfort with
Scalia's views that judges must rely solely on the intent of the authors of
the Constitution [the originalist position]...." And according to Berkeley
Law Professor John Yoo, a former Justice Department official in the current
Bush Administration, Roberts is "less ideological" than Scalia or Thomas.
And Manuel Miranda, Chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a group
lobbying for conservative judicial appointments, said Roberts "is a
constitutionalist...[and they] tend to respect established precedent and
stare decisis...." Roe is precedent, and Casey upheld Roe on the basis of
stare decisis. Douglas Kmiec, the former Dean at the Columbus School of Law
at Catholic University who worked with Roberts in the Reagan and Bush Sr.
Administrations, told the Chronicle (July 20) that "Roberts is the kind of
conservative who respects precedent [Roe is precedent]." Kmiec also told the
Chronicle that "Roberts would not vote to repeal Roe vs. Wade...." (Scalia
and Thomas voted to overturn Roe.)

Meanwhile, we have Fr. Pavone calling Roberts "prolife" (Chronicle, July
20). Yeah, right. Fr. Pavone has done a lot of good for the prolife cause,
but it looks like he's becoming a Republican Party hack, just as Fr. Robert
Drinan is a Democratic Party hack.

You will notice that President Bush is willing to go out on a limb for his
war on Iraq and for his revamping of Social Security, but not to get Roe
struck down. The Republican Party operates the way many Socialist parties
operated in Europe. The Republicans have a strong prolife plank in their
Platform, just as Socialist parties had planks calling for nationalization
of the means of production and an alliance with the USSR, in order to hold
on to their Marxist base. It was widely understood that the Socialist
parties would not honor their platforms. However, the Marxist base preferred
not to believe it, and the same is true of the prolife base of the
Republican Party. Moreover, the Republican Party cannot afford to give
prolifers what they want because it would then lose its ability to appeal to
prolife voters (many of whom are former Democrats and would return to voting
Democratic).

Just as the Socialist parties could say they were at least better than the
conservative parties - i.e., "vote the lesser evil" - so the Republicans can
say they are at least better than the Democratic Party. Will prolifers
continue to vote Republican? Probably. Republicans know they hold the
prolifers hostage. In The New York Post (May 17), neocon columnist John
Podhoretz was campaigning for Rudolph Giuliani (a pro-abort) to get the GOP
presidential nomination for 2008. Podhoretz advised Giuliani to "go
pro-life" to get the nomination. He added, "The change of heart does not
even need to be all that believable." Podhoretz is likely right that it's
that easy to sucker prolifers.

Both the Marxist core constituency and the prolife core constituency seem
willing to settle for rhetoric and a little tinkering around the edges
rather than real results. So nothing will change for prolifers, and abortion
will remain legal.

On the night Roberts was appointed by Bush (July 19), MSNBC ran a banner
saying, "ROBERTS: OVERTURN ROE V. WADE." White House aide Steve Schmidt
called MSNBC to complain. A correction followed the next evening (July 20):
"According to the White House, Judge Roberts does not oppose Roe v. Wade."
What more do you need to know?

Will prominent prolife Republicans oppose Roberts? Fat chance. They're
Republicans first, prolifers second.

As Judie Brown, President of the American Life League, wrote in the NOR
(Dec. 2004, p. 5): "In the past 24 years, the prolife movement has given its
support blindly - and some would argue foolishly - to the Republican Party,
and in that time we've had three Republican presidents (16 of those 24
years) and abortion is still the law of the land," and this was before Bush
Jr.'s betrayal of his prolife base. Mrs. Brown also said that "the prolife
elite is satisfied with Republicans at any price." Apparently, the prolife
elite thinks it's great fun to hobnob with the Republican bigwigs in D.C.
Lenin had a term for such people, "useful idiots" - and Lenin certainly knew
how to exploit them, and so do the Republicans.

It's time - long past time - for grassroots prolifers to escape from the
Republican cage. Do we need to form a third party? How can we get the
prolife movement going again? We'd like to know what our readers think.

New Oxford Notes: September 2005

Comments

[Martha Young]

I don't agree that the GOP takes Catholics for granted, certainly not President Bush. By the way, his name is George W Bush. He is NOT a juniour! I wish anti-Bush people would get that straight. It's insulting because I think in most cases, they know better.

[MJM]

I have subscribed to and like New Oxford Review, but this article is short-sided at best. I am totally against the Harriet Miers nomination, but to compare her in any way with Justice Jhn Roberts is ignorant. And for us pro-lifers to "form a third party" would be the best guarantee of political irrelevancy that anyone could come up with.

Also, what is with the NOR using "neocon" to describe such diverse people as Fathers Pavone & Neuhaus and mssrs. Novak & George. They are some of the leading intellectual lights of Catholicism and the pro-life movement today and for NOR to use the term "neocon" as some pejorative only serves to discredit them and not their targets.

Get over yourself NOR with your "more pro-life than thou" attitude. Politics is the art of the possible, not the establishing heaven on earth. Grow up already.

[W.]

"neoconservative" seems to be their way of designating one who supports the war in Iraq and similar approaches to foreign policy. I did not expect Fr. Pavone to be lumped in there. I will have to look into his comments on the war.

One can be pro-life and support this war. To say otherwise is faulty reasoning and shows either, at best, a different understanding of what "pro-life" means or, worse off, an ignorance of moral distinctions that are drawn to support justice (and in that event likely killing of enemy combatants or terrorists) and respect for human life. Justice does not come without protecting the innocent and applying due punishment for crimes.

[carol]

I get NOR and it's no secret the editor hates this administration and probably every other. Moreover he and other hardliners to be saying, nominate someone to the Court who can't get confirmed! I don't like Miers either, was pulling for Edith Jones myself, but I don't think Bush was showing bad faith on this pick. It's just that he doesn't get it and has that non-lawyer's impatience with the legal establishment and all its folderol. He should defer but won't.

I'm hoping Miers gets shot down in the hearings, but it's not enough to make me go globally on the warpath against Bush, which NOR is wont to do in any case.

[another carol]

The NOR aside, I am disappointed in Bush and the the GOP. What's wrong with appointing someone openly pro-life? A lot of people in the country consider abortion murder, not just Catholics, and long to see Roe overturned. Maybe I just don't understand how things are in Washington but it seems to me we have to openly fight against what we think is wrong(evil). I voted for him thinking he would appoint pro-life judges and he's appointed someone who's never been a judge but kisses the ground he walks on and goes to his church. Maybe I was the sucker.

[MikeM]

What a load of nonsense. Incorrectly stating the President's name, flinging around "neocon" like it is a curse, using the phrase "Bush's war on Iraq". The war is our war, about time everyone understands that. No one is more "pro-life" than the Islamofascists!

[Chris Naaden]

Typical elitist brain-deadisms. By the way, I love being pigeon-holed and made into a lobbying group by our own side. How about a little respect for the big picture, too; abortion is the only pro-life issue. There is fetal stem cell research and the GWOT, just to name a couple.

[joeh]

There is only one party for Catholic to support and that is the Republican Party. It is the only pro life party that has a chance of being elected. Starting a third party in our country is not possible. The Democratic Party supports abortion in every possible manner and many also support end of life positions opposite what the church teaches as well as the destruction of embryonic life in the same manner as Hitler supported using people for medical tests. Their gay agenda is also contrary to church teaching. On the war we saw democrats clammering to go after Iraq through the year 2000 and this is well documented. Most voted for the war and then after our troops are in harms way leave them hanging with their cowardly retreat. I see no way to support this type of party.

[joeh]

And one more thing, which party is it that seems to be upset if a real believing Catholic is nominated for the Supreme Court? Of course it is the Democrats. Kerry said if elected he would have a litmus test and that only pro choice people would be chosen. That means only Catholics who are like Kennedy and Kerry, those outside their faith and open heretics could be chosen.

[Scott Marian]

The author of this past article must be a newly converted democrat. Someone else mentioned that the terms to describe those you disagree with as being pejorative and that is a valid statement. Yet, why is the author a democrat?? That is the manner in which a democrat argues. The left can not and does not argue the facts but slogans to diminish or harm their opposition.

As a former candidate for the State legislature here in Colorado in the 1994 election, I most certainly do identify myself as a Republican. Yet, the demographical mix of the Republican party is only 70% Prolife. Which means if that continues into the candidates for the U.S. Senate we will need a super majority to get a Prolife Judge to sit on the Supreme Court.
Yet, Catholics only vote 53% Prolife in the last election. I would like to know why we do not blame Roman Catholics for not voting Prolife as to the reason that Abortion is still an issue in this country. The Hispanic community shows polls at 78% Prolife and the same poll shows them 44% more conservative on abortion than the HOLY CHURCH. Yet, here in Colorado only 27.5% voted Prolife in the U.S. Senate race.

My solution to that problem is to put out a Catholics voter guide to every parish based only on the five isses that JPII said we should vote upon. If you have an interest in helping email me at [email protected]. We however will not be going into California for a while, primarily because the leadership is rather liberal and I doubt would permit us there as well as the liberal courts. Presently, a number of attorneys are writing a legal opinion to form the organization.

[Samuel Crow]

The idea that President Bush takes Pro-Lifers for granted makes me wonder why the words,"Unpopular War in Iraq". I think there is more of an agenda in this article than anything about Pro-Life. Not only do I believe it is not from an Orthodox Catholic but from another Ultra-liberal who claims to be Pro-Life trying to turn Catholics and other Pro-Life Americans against Bush. President Bush has done a great deal to insure that we have Justices who do not make law which is what Roe v. Wade. The complete list of those such as Priscilla Owens, and others is the proof. Bush has said that he is opposed to Abortion and has taken action unlike Kerry, Clinton, Ted Kennedy and others to stop Abortion on demand. He has shown to the public that this is not a women's right issue as those secular politicans have tried to frame it. Rather is is a moral question of do we have a right as a society to kill.

[Xristoforos McAvoy]

This article says the exact same thoughts I've had in my head. The New Oxford Review has my utmost respect. If anyone has an understanding and basis to throw around the word neo-conservative it is them.

"Before Crisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation -- right out of the blue. The foundation wanted to give us money -- 'free' money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant -- on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.) He told me he would fund us regularly -- if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy." What I didn't say was that the fellow was a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism, and I suspected he was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests (which he had every right to do). As we said in the September Editorial, I said "no," and that was the end of that. But the neocon foundations didn't give up. "

New Oxford Review is 100% subscriber sustained, no lobbyists, bribery or politicization. People are easy to fool. The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction. The truth is Allah, Theos, God.

[brother lesser]

Fr. Richard Neuhaus is one of the greatest minds in the world today. To label him a neocon is to sell the man short. I think it appropriate to label him "Orthodox Catholic" and be done with it!

[A Simple Sinner]

The Devil You Know v. The Devil You Do Not Know

What I can say in favor of the GOP and their use of the PL plank to bring "us people" in is this:

While I do not believe most of the party is all that sincere about the plank, and most of them would not really break a nail to stop an abortion, just enough of us out here are tolerated and thrown some crumbs and appeased. One day in heaven we MAY meet another soul who got there because even the smallest prolife action or legislation lead to his or her birth. The glimmer of hope is that even one more soul is brought into the beatific vision.

So why do I vote pro-life? Because even though I know R v. W will not be overturned any time soon... and barring a Divine rebuke abortions will not end, I will vote for the party that may at least slow the process down, not fund it, and thereby give a minute fighting chance to "one more soul".

[David]

"One day in heaven we MAY meet another soul who got there because even the smallest prolife action or legislation lead to his or her birth."

I wonder if the Catholic stance on unbaptized babies pertains to aborted babies as well. If you, we may get to meet them after all (presuming WE blog-writers get there ;-) )

[A Simple Sinner]

David,

I sure hope so.

When I was contemplating a retrun to the church one of the things that horrified me was that I would NOT achieve the beatific vision if I did not come back. The idea that I would not spend eternity with Jesus and the saints at one point made me wake up in the midde of the night and weep. Stray thoughts of suicide that entered my head (even when secular) scared me because I was worried I would not be with God forever in Heaven.

I hope we all make it.

[Theresa]

Wow, this is an old article, but thanks to all who made recent comments here so I could get it on my radar. I really like this article. It expresses frustrations I've had with BOTH parties for so long. A third party is in order!